Robin Holt (on Thu, 17 May 2007 08:00:07 -0500) wrote: >On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:38:59PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> So even with that check, it can race between not running and running >> while you do the unwind, and still get the MCA. > >To me, this still seems like a reasonable check. Do you object to >this patch or are you just pointing out the hole. No objection to the patch, but the race means that any test on the task's status is going to be an incomplete fix. David Mosberger reckons that unwind should never cause an error, maybe we should be looking at adding more checks to the unwind code to cope with spurious addresses? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|